Kapil Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65377 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2021 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE District- Nalanda ====================================================== Kapil Ram S/o Bharat Lal Ram R/o - Vill- Hirakhutahari, P.S - Meharma, District - Godda, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Suman Devi W/o Kapil Ram, D/o Maneshwar Prasad R/o vill - Hirakhutahari, P.s. - Meharma, Distt.- Godda, Jharkhand at present R/o Alinagar, P.O. and P.S. - Biharsharif, Distt. - Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the O.P. No. 2 :

Dr. Satyendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-01-2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Dr. Satyendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, learned APP for the State are present.

3. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 248C of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. As per the allegation made in the complaint, due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the petitioner and his family members committed cruelty and tortured the complainant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65377 of 2024(3) dt.29-01-2025 2/2 and thereafter they forcibly ousted her from her matrimonial house.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submitted that petitioner has deserted the opposite party no. 2, who is his legally wedded wife.

6. The petitioner was granted interim protection vide order dated 05.10.2024. Today, the petitioner has remained unrepresented and it appears that petitioner, after obtaining favourable order, is intentionally avoiding the Court proceeding.

7. Considering the allegation made in the complaint case, as well as, the fact that the petitioner has remained unrepresented and it appears that petitioner, after obtaining favourable order, is intentionally avoiding the Court proceeding, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T